[arin-ppml] (no subject)
steve at ibctech.ca
Fri Jan 29 00:09:22 EST 2010
George Bonser wrote:
>>> One might also consider the merits of this "distributed management"
>>> approach to maintaining whois as a useful mechanism for preserving
>>> openness and transparency of ARIN policy outcomes. The more that
>>> (by current convention, "public") contact information remains
>>> accessible, the less ARIN members have to rely on ARIN staff to
>>> summary answers to sensitive policy questions using
>>> non-sharable/non-disclosable member data. In a world where virtually
>>> every important institution is at the center of a permanent debate
>>> between defenders of "x is generally good" and partisans of "x is
>>> hopelessly corrupt" -- with the vast majority of stakeholders
>>> be in the "trust but verify" center -- seems like it would be
>>> weigh the costs and benefits very carefully before eliminating the
>>> public data resources that make such independent
>>> efforts possible.
>> ... ^ what he said.
> More openness is better. If a provider knowingly provides incorrect
> info, they should be at risk of losing the IP space. The addresses do
> not belong to them, they are entrusted with them by the community.
Yes. IIRC, the NRPM refers to the term 'license'.
> I would possibly support a proposal that would eliminate SWIP/RWHOIS
> requirements for networks that are announced ONLY from the provider's
I'm not in favour of this. It would cause undue overhead
administratively, and would force someone (possibly ARIN) to validate
If it's ge /29, it's SWIP'ed. Period.
More information about the ARIN-PPML